Very Good In Places But Ultimately Unconvincing

Rating: 7/10 (20 October 2004)

Long before I watched 28 DAYS LATER I had an online conversation with a couple of my cyber friends Jeremy and Riquez . Jeremy praised the movie thinking it was one of the best film releases in several years . I did point out to him the ridiculous idea that a virus with an incubation period of 20 seconds wouldn't be able to cause the type of havoc as featured in the movie . Riquez contributed to the conversation by saying " Theo you have no problem with rabid zombies but you find a virus with an incubation period of 20 seconds ridiculous ! " After finally seeing 28 DAYS LATER ( Thanks for the video Robin ) my reservations were confirmed , the audience can quite happily accept the concept of raging psychos tearing up the country destroying all in their path but the thought put into small details spoils the film somewhat
!!!!! SPOILERS !!!!!
Most of the problems lie in Alex Garland's script , it lacks depth , logic and internal continuity . Take for example the line where Selena tells Jim that the apocalypse was caused by something in the blood . How would she know this ? This is an example of characters knowing what's happening because the screenwriter does which is a mistake on Alex Garland's part . The reverse is also very true with characters being unable to work out things the audience has . Before seeing the movie I did have online conversations on the message board that a virus that takes 20 seconds to turn people into zombies wouldn't be able to spread world wide , indeed this is central to the plot and Sgt Farrell does state that " How does the infection spread across the oceans , mountains and rivers ? " and yet he's the only character in the story to draw this very obvious conclusion that only mainland Britain has been struck by rage . It would have been far less obvious if Selena and others had been totally ignorant as to the mechanics of infection
As for the gaps in logic ask yourself this: If the soldiers want to keep Selena and Hannah as sex slaves why didn't they murder Jim as soon as they saw him ? I guess if they did we wouldn't have a story , but the screenplay is full of these niggling problems , like Jones and Mitchell getting into a fight so Jim can escape or West and Davies going to the barricade to kill Jim when they've got everything they need ( ie Selena and Hannah ) at the house . There's no reason for the soldiers to care about killing Jim
I also had a problem with the characterisation . Selena is shown as being tough as nails and totally ruthless at the start of the story and then needs rescuing by Jim at the end . Compare her to characters in say a John Christopher story where the protagonist starts off as middle class and mild mannered and ends up having to kill to survive . This is what happens to Jim but it seems a totally ridiculous character arc as he wipes out West's platoon . Jim has spent a month in a coma , has no military experience and manages to beat some squaddies who not only managed to survive mass attacks of the infected but had considerable battle experience before rage . I'm telling you Saddam must be kicking himself about not recruiting any bicycle couriers into the Iraqi army
I will absolve Garland of any blame for the bizarre upbeat ending where Jim survives a bullet wound to the stomach and lives happily ever after with Selena and Hannah since the studio demanded a happy ending for their audience . Let's be honest here , the only ending that would have made sense is Jim dying and the two girls facing an uncertain future with rage turning into a pandemic holocaust
I don't want to give the impression that I hated 28 DAYS LATER . I liked it a lot and will praise director Danny Boyle for making a tense and often very thrilling film . The use of digital video succeeds and the cinematography is breath taking especially the scenes set at the rain drenched roadblock where you can almost see every single raindrop falling pass the screen . The casting is somewhat uneven ( The French foreign legion isn't that cosmopolitan never mind the British army ) but mention must go to Ricci Harnett as Cpl Mitchell who plays one of cinema's most memorable thugs in a long time , Leo Bill might give an irritating performance as Jones but that's the way he's written , Naomie Harris is impressive where she's not let down by the script and the only real disappointment is Christopher Ecclestone as Major West who seems slightly miscast
I gave 28 DAYS LATER seven out of ten but to be honest this should have been so much better . One can't help thinking Boyle would have been better off filming an adaptation of John Christopher's THE DEATH OF GRASS . As it stands it's a very good example of if a film is good it's because of the director . If it's bad it's because of the screenwriter